m 







Trt 






THE OCCURRENCE OF 
DISEASES OF ADULT BEES 



E. F. PHILLIPS 

Apiculturist 







UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR 218 



Contribution from the Bureau of Entomology 
L. O. HOWARD, Chief 



Washington, D. C. 



Issued March, 1922. 



WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE I 1922 



_ 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/occurenceofdiseaOOphil 






~ps£ 

W A 
THE OCCURRENCE OF DISEASES OF ADULT BEES. 



CONTENTS. 



Introduction 3 

Isle of Wight disease 3 

Studies as to its cause 3 

Search for Isle of Wight disease in the 

United States 5 

Introduction through queen-mailing 

cages 6 

Means of preventing introduction 7 



Page. 

Nosema disease.. 9 

Distribution by years 10 

Distribution by months 11 

Geographical distribution 11 

Prevention of spread 12 

Arsenical poisoning 12 

Negative results 13 

Literature cited 15 



INTRODUCTION. 

THE DISEASES to which adult honeybees are subject have from 
time to time been discussed in the American beekeeping litera- 
ture, but so far there has been no serious and widespread out- 
break of any such trouble and not much work has been done in this 
country' on the causes of these diseases. Because of the possibility 
of the introduction and establishment in the United States of another 
disease of adult bees which seems to be serious in its nature, it seems 
best at this time to publish the information at hand regarding the 
apparent absence of this disease in the United States. The purpose 
of this paper is to discuss the status of adult bee diseases, without 
reference to the details of work as to their causes. A list of citations 

is appended. 

ISLE OF WIGHT DISEASE. 

Isle of Wight disease is evidently a serious source of loss to bee- 
keepers of the British Isles. It was first observed in 1904 in the Isle 
of Wight, hence the name, and in succeeding years it has spread with 
considerable rapidity to all parts of Great Britain. Because of the 
large losses from this disease reported by British beekeepers, it has 
been the subject of investigation by several workers for a number of 
years. It has been called acarine disease in England, from the 
order name (Acarina) of the mite which causes it. 

Studies as to the cause. — At first a study was made of bacteria in 
the alimentary tract of the diseased bees, but this proved valueless 
in determining the cause. Later work indicated that the malady 
was due to the pathogenic action of Nosema apis (5, 6 , 7, 8) ,* a proto- 



1 Reference is made by number (italic) to " Literature cited," p. 15 
92150°— 22 



Circular 218, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 





The Occurrence of Diseases of Adult Bees. 5 

zoan parasite of the alimentary tract of adult honeybees, described by 
Zander {22, 23) in 1909. This protozoan has been found to be 
widely distributed in the United States and elsewhere throughout 
the world, without causing the serious conditions described for the 
Isle of Wight disease, and for this reason some doubt was cast on the 
results of the English workers in this field. Furthermore, the organ- 
ism was found not to be present in all colonies suffering from Isle of 
Wight disease. Later Anderson and Rennie {1, 2) called these 
results in question, without, however, giving the cause of the disease, 
but Nosema apis came to be looked upon as a relatively harmless 
parasite. In December, 1920, Rennie and his associates announced 
that the Isle of Wight disease is caused by the parasitic mite Tarson- 
emus woodi Rennie, and the results of their work were published 
early in 1921 {9, 17, 18, 19, 21). Later the mite was placed in a new 
genus, Acarapis (figs. 1 and 2) by Hirst {10). 

Search for Isle of Wight disease in the United States. — During the 
period when the Isle of Wight disease was attributed to Nosema apis 
there seemed to be no cause for alarm in the United States, but when 
this theory was disproven and another organism was given as the 
cause of the trouble, fears regarding the introduction of the disease 
were renewed. On the receipt of the published results of the work 
by Rennie {18), steps were at once taken to determine whether 
Acarapis woodi is present in the United States. Requests were sent 
out widely to beekeepers, asking that they send to the Bureau of 
Entomology samples of any adult bees which showed any unusual 
symptoms or any disease. During the summer of 1921 there were, 
no reports from any part of the United States 'that indicated any 
serious diseases of adult bees. During the summer 200 samples were 
received, all of which were examined for all known causes of disease 
among adult bees. The examinations for the mites were made by 
J. B. Moorman, and A. P. Sturtevant examined the bees for Nosema 
apis. Certain samples were examined for arsenic, when there seemed 
reason to suspect poisoning as the cause of death, this work being 
done by the Bureau of Chemistry. Table 1, prepared by Mr. 
Sturtevant, gives the results of the examinations : 

Table 1. — Results of examinations of adult bees. 



State or country. 


Counties. 


Towns. 


Nega- 
tive. 


Nosema 
apis. 


Not ex- 
amined 

for 
Nosema. 


Arsenic. 


Total. 




2 
1 

13 
2 
1 
1 
2 
2 


2 
1 

16 
3 
1 
1 
2 
2 


2 














i" 




1 




15 
3 
2 
2 
1 
2 


4+1? 

2 

2 




20 








5 








4 








2 


Florida 


1 






2 








2 



6 Circular 218, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 

Table 1. — Results of examinations of adult bees — Continued. 



State or country. 


Counties. 


Towns. 


Nega- 
tive. 


Nosema 
apis. 


Not ex- 
amined 

for 
Nosema. 


Arsenic. 


Total. 




2 
6 
6 
4 
2 
1 
1 
4 
6 
1 
2 
1 
1 
7 
1 

13 
4 
8 
2 
4 

14 
1 
1 
1 
2 
3 
2 
4 
6 
5 
5 
1 
1 


2 
7 
6 
4 
2 
1 
1 
4 
6 
1 
2 
1 
1 
7 
1 

16 
5 
8 
2 
4 

16 
1 
1 
1 
2 
3 
3 
4 
9 
5 
5 
1 
1 


2 
5 
5 
6 
1 




1 
1 




3 




2 
2 




8 






7 








6 




3 

1 




4 






1 




1 

7 
5 
1 
2 
1 
1 
5 
1 

10 
7 
8 
3 
3 

16 
1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
4 
4 
5 
4 
4 
2 




1 








1 


8 




3 




8 






1 








2 








1 








1 




1 




3 


9 






1 




9 

1? 

2 


1 




20 






8 


Ohio 





10 








3 




3 

2 






6 








18 








1 










1 










1 










2 




1 




3 


Utah . 


...... 


4 








4 




4 
1 
1 


.:. 


9 






5 






5 






2 




1 


i 


1 










Total (41) 


146 


161 


147 


45+27 


4 


4 


202 







Since at the beginning of the examinations no specimens of Acarapis 
woodi had been seen by any of the workers in the United States, there 
existed some fear that they might in some way be overlooked. 
Through the courtesy of Prof. John Anderson, lecturer in beekeeping, 
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, two lots of bees suffering from the 
Isle of Wight disease were received and it was found that no difficulty 
exists in finding the mites when they are present. Not only are the 
mites themselves easily found on examining the tracheal tubes of the 
thorax, but the tracheal tubes are so discolored (as described by 
Rennie) as to make the detection of the infestation easy. 

While negative results on only 200 samples do not prove the 
absence of the mite in the United States, the wide distribution of the 
samples received and the apparent absence of any serious adult bee 
disease indicate that the Isle of Wight disease does not exist within 
the limits of the United States. Statements regarding supposed 
cases of Isle of Wight disease have appeared in American bee journals 
from time to time, but there is nothing to support these diagnoses 
and such statements may be safely disregarded. It is desirable that 
further examinations be made as material is available. 

Introduction through queen-mailing cages. — The shipments made by 
Prof. Anderson brought to light a fact of great importance. In the 



The Occurrence of Diseases of Adult Bees. 7 

first shipment all the bees were dead on arrival and no live mites 
were discovered. The bees had been selected from a colony that 
was being robbed, and the bees were apparently old and worn out 
before being sent. The second shipment consisted of a queenbee 
and attendants in a queen-mailing cage, all but two of the worker 
bees reaching Washington alive. The queen was not found to con- 
tain mites. Many of the accompanying living worker bees were 
found to contain living mites, showing conclusively that it is an easy 
matter to import the living mites to the United States. Living 
mites were found in worker bees after they had been dead for several 
days. 

Means of 'preventing introduction. — If the reports of the great losses 
caused by the Isle of Wight disease in Great Britain are credited, and 
if it be assumed that the mite is not present in the United States, 
there is reason to look on the introduction of these mites as a dan- 
gerous possibility. Since the mites are so readily imported through 
the shipment of queenbees through the mails, it is a matter of some 
surprise that the disease is not found and universally distributed 
here. While some of the earliest importations of bees to the United 
States were made from England, such as the introduction to Massa- 
chusetts in the seventeenth century, the recent shipments of queens 
have been from Carniola, Cyprus, the Caucasus (chiefly through 
France), but especially from Italy. Because of the newness of the 
discovery regarding the cause of the Isle of Wight disease, the absence 
of any record of the occurrence of the mite in Italy or elsewhere on 
the continent of Europe 2 or Asia is without significance. There of 
course remains the possibility, but scarcely the probability, that the 
parasite is exceedingly local in its distribution, as stated by Rennie 
(18). This is supported by the belief of many British beekeepers 
that the disease was first limited to the Isle of Wight and then spread 
rapidly through the British Isles. It is now reported generally but 
not universally in those islands. 

The fact that this mite belongs to or is related to the genus Tar- 
sonemus, suggests that it may be at some stage of its life history a 
plant feeder, yet its specialized structure (4) (causing it to be put in 
a new genus by Hirst (10)) may be taken as evidence against this 
view. The fact that all stages of the mite have now been found in 
the tracheal tubes of the honeybee thorax would suggest its strictly 
parasitic habit. 

The climatic conditions of the British Isles have been considered 
by some beekeepers as a contributing cause of the disease. While 
this is a possibility, unless the mite is associated with some species 

2 In the January, 1922, issue of L'Apiculteur (volume 66, No. 1, pp. 20-23) appears the announcement 
that the mite associated with the Isle of Wight disease has been found and determined by L. Berland, 
assistant in the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), in bees sent through the editor of the above journal 
from the French Alps. The exact location is not recorded. 



8 Circular 218, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 

of plant which is limited in its distribution by these climatic con- 
ditions, this view is not probable. The fact that the honeybee so 
largely creates its own environment within the hive is against this 
view. Within the limits of the United States there is found such a 
diversity of climatic and floristic conditions that it would be impos- 
sible in the present state of knowledge regarding this disease to 
believe that the bees of this country are in no danger from this mite. 
While the work of Rennie and his associates bears evidence of 
thoroughness, there still remains the possibility that they are mis- 
taken in attributing this disease to the mite. This possibility will be 
removed as work is done on this disease by other investigators. There 
is no question that the mite is present in colonies suffering from the 
disease. 

Since at present it would be indicated that the Isle of Wight 
disease is not present in the United States, probably not in North 
America, the question of preventing its introduction is an immediate 
one. The ease with which the parasitic mites may be carried in 
queen-mailing cages, the most likely method of introduction, suggests 
the desirability of restricting or prohibiting the importation of 
queenbees. Restriction of importations of adult bees would entail 
considerable expense, since it would presumably be necessary to 
establish Government quarantine apiaries located near one or more 
of the usual places of entry. 

Prohibition or restriction of importation of adult bees from the 
British Isles alone would be of little value, because of the ease with 
which queenbees and the accompanying workers could be sent to 
the Continent of Europe and reshipped to evade the law. It would 
also be folly to assume that the mite is restricted in its distribution 
to Great Britain until much more woik is done on its distribution. 
Except during the period of the war, when importation of queens 
was almost impossible, a considerable number of queenbees have been 
sent to the United States every year for many years. Many of these 
queens are imported by beekeepers for their own use, on the pre- 
sumption that they can get better stock in Italy than they can in the 
United States— an entirely erroneous belief. Many are also imported 
by specialist beekeepers who make a business of raising queenbees for 
sale. These- men should be breeding better bees, instead of sending 
to Italy annually for unselected material for breeding work, and it is 
probable that a prohibition of importation would actually be desirable 
from the point of view of compelling better breeding methods. There 
is, so far as known, no race or strain of bees anywhere in the world 
superior to those that have already been introduced, and no obvious 
advantages come from the repeated importation of queenbees. If a 
prohibition on importation seems desirable for the present, and if at 



The Occurrence of Diseases of Adult Bees. 9 

some later time a better race of bees is found, provision might then 
be made for its importation under proper precautions. Prohibition 
rather than restriction through quarantine would seem preferable 
because of the high cost of such regulatory measures. At present 
there is no law which would seem to cover this case, and new legis- 
lation will be required to safeguard the beekeeping industry of the 
United States from this pest. It would be quite possible to provide 
by law for either restriction or prohibition, with the understanding 
that for the present only prohibition would be enforced. In view of 
the possibility that desirable races of bees may be found after further 
explorations have been made, especially in Africa, such a double pro- 
vision would be desirable. 

NOSEMA DISEASE. 

In 1909 Zander {22, 23) described a protozoan parasite which is 
found in the alimentary tract of the adult honeybee and to which he 
attributed serious losses to beekeepers in continental Europe. Zander 
was evidently misled as to its seriousness. Following the announce- 
ment of his findings, investigators in all parts of the world began a 
search for this parasite, and it was soon found in several places in the 
United States, in Australia, and in various parts of Europe {3, 11, 
12). From these various investigations information regarding the 
Tife history of the parasite was obtained, although some curious mis^ 
takes of observation were made and the literature is not in agreement 
regarding it. 

As previously stated, some of the earlier work on the Isle of Wight 
disease in England indicated that it was caused by Nosema apis. 
This conclusion was reached by Fantham and Porter {5, 6) , although 
their work contained errors regarding the life history and led to 
considerable confusion. Assuming that the results of this work were 
correct, and knowing that Nosema apis is a widely distributed para- 
site, those interested in bee-disease control naturally concluded either 
that the reports regarding Isle of Wight disease were grossly exag- 
gerated or that the environmental conditions in the British Isles 
resulted in a more serious aspect of the disease than was observed 
elsewhere. Outside the British Isles there was no proof that Nosema 
apis causes great losses, although, perhaps misled' by the work of 
Zander and Fantham and Porter, certain other investigators were led 
to attribute serious conditions to the organism. Those who knew the 
actual results of Nosema apis infection were inclined to question the 
results of the British investigators, and, as has been shown earlier, 
this work is now virtually disproven, in that the mite Acarapis woodi 
is now believed to be the cause of the Isle of Wight disease. 

While there is a disease of adult bees caused by the pathogenic 
action of Nosema apis, the wide distribution of the parasite in the 
United States and the absence of any serious disease of adult bees 



10 



Circular 218, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 



anywhere within this territory lead to the conclusion that the efforts 
to ascribe serious results to this organism are misleading. That a 
colony of bees may be weakened by heavy artificial infection of the 
organism is by no means proof that the organism under usual con- 
ditions of the apiary ever leads to the death of a colony. In fact, so 
far as can be determined from the present evidence, it is doubtful 
whether a colony of bees free to fly is seriously affected by this 
parasite. Petersen (IS) observed many bees infected with Nosema 
spores, but observed no pathogenic symptoms. 

The effects of food containing material which the bees are unable 
to digest (15), leading to the ordinary conditions of dysentery, and of 
various other environmental factors in permitting or encouraging the 
growth of the organism have not been adequately studied. Zander 
(22, 28) attributed an infectious dysentery to this organism, as dis- 
tinguished from the ordinary dysentery with which beekeepers have 
long been familiar when the bees are wintered badly. It remains to 
be established whether conditions of ordinary dysentery are favorable 
to the growth of the organism, and whether it in turn causes certain 
additional conditions favorable to the death of the bees. Without 
wishing to underestimate the damage from Nosema apis alone, it is 
exceedingly doubtful whether it is the cause of a serious disease 
of bees. 

Various names have been given to the disease caused by this 
organism, such as Nosema disease (a translation of Zander's name 
Nosemaseuche) , Microsporidiosis (actually suggested as a substitute 
for the name Isle of Wight disease) , nosemosis, infectious dysentery, 
and Nosemakrankheit. 

Distribution by years. — During the years 1912, 1913, and 1921 
special requests were sent out to beekeepers asking for samples of 
adult bees that appeared to be suffering from some disorder. This 
fact accounts for the larger numbers of samples received during these 
years. Table 2 shows the results of the examinations of samples 
received, so far as the presence of Nosema apis is concerned: 
Table 2. — Samples of Nosema disease, by years. 



Year. 


Nosema 
present. 


Nosema 
doubt- 
ful. 


Nosema 
absent. 


No diag- 
nosis lor 
Nosema. 


Total. 


1910 



1 

35 

11 

5 
6 

20 
8 
5 
9 

45 








1 

2 
2 
1 


2 


6 
7 
49 
52 
14 
16 
31 
21 
20 
27 
22 
149 


13 

21 

16 

15 

9 

21 

4 

5 

1 

6 

1 

6 


19 
29 
100 

78 
23 
43 
43 
48 
30 
38 
32 
202 


1911 


1912 


1913 t 


1914 .. 


1915 


1916 


1917 . 


1918 


1919 


1920 


1921 


Total 


145 


8 


414 


118 


685 



The Occurrence of Diseases of Adult Bees. 



11 



Certain samples have been received in such bad condition as to 
make examination of any kind impossible. In other instances, sam- 
ples were received in which the history did not indicate the necessity 
for laboratory examination. In recent years more care has been 
exercised in examining all samples of adult bees for the presence of 
Nosema apis, because of a desire to determine its distribution. The 
majority of the samples tabulated have been examined by A. P. 
Sturtevant, apicultural assistant. From 1905 to 1909, previous to 
the description of Nosema apis, a few samples of adult bees were 
received, but as at that time no examination was made for this 
organism, these samples, 14 in all, are not included. 

Distribution by months. — Because of the possibility that Nosema 
disease is in some manner correlated with the activities of bees, and 
especially with the character of the food, it is desirable to present 
data as to the time of year at which the various samples have been 
received for examination. The dates used are those at which the 
samples reached the laboratory, which in a few cases might mean 
that they had been taken from the hives late the month preceding. 

Table 3. — Samples of Nosema disease, by months. 



Month. 


Number 
of samples 
examined. 


Number 
with 

Nosema. 


Per cent 

of samples 

infected. 


Month. 


Number 
of samples 
examined. 


Number 

with 
Nosema. 


Per cent 
ofsamples 
infected. 




11 
21 
37 
60 
146 
111 
112 



1 
7 
14 
39 
33 
30 



5 
19 
23 
27 
23 
27 


August 


04 
37 
23 
16 
17 


8 
2 

3 

8 


12 




5 













19 






47 




Total 




July 


685 


145 






21 













It would appear that there is more of this disease in early summer 
than at other times, but in some cases at least it is evident that the 
disease has started during the winter and has not been detected until 
the bees have become active. Since some samples were sent on re- 
quest at particular times, the numbers for the several months can 
not be taken as too definite. 

Geographical distribution. — Table 1 gives the distribution of 45 
samples of Nosema disease received during the season of 1921. 

The small number of samples of Nosema disease which have so far 
been diagnosed makes it impossible to draw definite conclusions re- 
garding the geographical distribution of the disease. Samples have 
been received from 33 States and from three Canadian Provinces. 
There is also in the record a sample from Canada without information 
as to the Province from which it came. 



12 



Circular 218, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 



Table 4. — -The distribution of Nosema disease, by States. 



California 9 

Colorado 2 

Connecticut G 

Florida 4 

Georgia 2 

Idaho 2 

Illinois 6 

Indiana 3 

Iowa 5 

Kansas 4 

Kentucky 2 

Massachusetts 2 



Michigan 14 

Minnesota 2 

Missouri 1 

Nebraska 1 

New Jersey 3 

New York 21 

North Carolina 4 

Ohio 9 

Oregon 6 

Pennsylvania 3 

Rhode Island 1 

South Dakota 1 



Tennessee 


9 


Texas 


1 


Utah 


1 


Vermont 


1 




1 


Washington 

West Virginia 


9 


Wyoming 


1 



Total 115 



The listing of these records by States fails to show the distribution 
by beekeeping regions. The clover region has furnished far more 
samples than any other. The alfalfa region shows comparatively 
little of the disease, while the sage and willow-herb regions of the West, 
in proportion to their sizes, show as much of the disease as does the 
clover region. The Southeastern States show few records. 

The time of the year at which the samples have reached the labora- 
tory from the various regions might throw some light on the character 
of the disease, as is the case with the records of European foulbrood. 
Because of the scant number of records, nothing definite can be learned 
from such an examination, but it seems probable that outbreaks of 
the disease may be expected more commonly in the Southern States 
during the winter and early spring. No samples have been received 
from this region during late summer. This suggests a relationship 
between wintering and Nosema disease. 

Prevention of spread. — While it would seem possible for Nosema apis 
to remain virulent in honey for a short time, the danger of introducing 
Nosema disease to an apiary through honey as a carrier seems slight, 
especially in view of the fact that the organism is destroyed by the 
amount of heat to which honey is usually exposed in the process of 
bottling. The most probable means of distributing the organism to 
new locations would seem to be through the shipment of living bees. 
Obviously any precautions taken against the introduction of Isle of 
Wight disease by the restriction or prohibition of the importation of 
living adult bees would seem to be adequate to keep out any further 
introduction of Nosema disease, but the present wide distribution of 
Nosema disease, and especially its mild character, would seem to 
make unnecessary any quarantine measures against it alone. 

ARSENICAL POISONING. 

Most of the samples that have been received at the Bureau of 
Entomology have not been examined for the presence of arsenic, but 
in a few instances, where the history of the case suggested this as a 
possible cause of the trouble, examinations have been made through 
the courtesy of the Bureau of Chemistry. It is not the purpose of 



The Occurrence of Diseases of Adult Bees. 13 

the present discussion to take up the question of the losses incident 
to the poisoning of bees by ill-advised applications of poisonous 
materials in sprays used for the control of insect pests. There is 
reason to think that in some instances serious results have come from 
this use of arsenic. Aside from Isle of Wight disease and Nosema- 
disease, this is the only other cause of death of adult bees which at 
present can be determined by laboratory methods. 

NEGATIVE RESULTS. 

The most regrettable fact about the data so far obtained on the 
diseases of adult bees is that so many of the samples have given 
negative results. This is due partly to the fact that certain diseases 
of adult bees exist for which the causes have not been determined. 
The serious nature of the diseases of the brood of bees has made it 
necessary that more attention be given to these, and while the causes 
of the three diseases of the brood have been learned, little good work 
has as yet been done on the diseases of adult bees. 

Attention should be called to the fact that many samples have been 
received which could not be diagnosed by laboratory methods. The 
greatest abnormal death of colonies of bees is doubtless due to poor 
wintering or to losses indirectly to be attributed to this cause. The 
condition known to beekeepers as dysentery is caused by an accumu- 
lation of feces in the alimentary tract, due to a poor quality of food 
and to a rapid accumulation due to excessive heat generation made 
necessary by improper care in winter. These conditions have been 
fully discussed in the publications of the United States Department 
of Agriculture on wintering. In some instances it is possible to 
surmise that the samples of dead bees have been taken from colonies 
that have died because the beekeeper did not take proper care of his 
bees in winter, but proof from laboratory diagnosis would be difficult 
or impossible. When bees are received in early spring which show 
a large volume of feces, this diagnosis is rather definite. 

A large number of cases possibly arise from the death of colonies 
observed after brood-rearing has begun in the spring, and this the 
beekeeper usually calls spring dwindling rather than winter loss. 
It has been shown that the death of bees after brood-rearing is 
under way in the spring is also a result of poor wintering, and should 
properly be so diagnosed. There is no other known cause of the 
condition known as spring dwindling. While laboratory proof of 
such a condition is difficult, the well-known deficiency in winter 
protection, so prevalent throughout the United States, suggests 
this as a major cause of the death of bees submitted for examina- 
tion. This has been recognized elsewhere than in the United States, 
for in the work on the Isle of Wight disease in England it was found 



14 Circular 218, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 

desirable to eliminate bees dying from exhaustion, and Mrs. Pixell- 
Goodrich (15) has worked out methods for the determination of 
death from old age. It is out of the question to submit all the 
samples received by the Bureau of Entomology to the tests which 
she has described, but there can be no question that death from 
quite natural causes induced by poor care is often mistaken by 
beekeepers for the work of some disease. 

Even though we eliminate the cases where there is reason to sus- 
pect poor care as the cause of death of adult bees, there still remain 
cases where evidence exists that death is due to some disease which 
can not be diagnosed in the laboratory at present. Cases which 
answer to the usual description of the so-called bee paralysis can 
not be diagnosed in the laboratory because there is still doubt as 
to the cause or causes of the trouble. According to Turesson (20) 
this disease is due to the molds which bees sometimes get in their 
food under unsatisfactory conditions in the hive, such as those of 
damp hives in winter. Whether there is more than one condition 
which is put under this name by beekeepers is still a matter of doubt 
(14). Other names have been given by beekeepers to abnormal 
death of adult bees, among which may be mentioned May disease 
(rarely used in the United States) and disappearing disease. The 
multiplication of names without adequate descriptions of symp- 
toms or some other means of differentiating the disease has nothing 
to commend it, and beekeepers will do well to avoid the making of 
new and confusing names for adult bee diseases. 

A serious difficulty arises from the fact that the symptoms ob- 
served for almost all the conditions which cause the abnormal 
death of adult bees are much alike. Even for Nosema disease, the 
cause of which is known, there is no definite description of symp- 
toms, and this is likewise to a considerable degree true of the Isle 
of Wight disease. Abnormal bees behave much alike, whatever 
the cause of the abnormality, and the descriptions of characteristic 
symptoms for the several diseases is exceedingly difficult. Symp- 
toms of adult bee diseases can not be described from the appearance 
of the dead bees, as is the case with the brood diseases. 



LITERATURE CITED. 

(1) Anderson, John. 

1916. The connection of nosema apis with isle of wight disease in hive 
bees. remarks on the evidence submitted in the board of 
agriculture reports of 1912 and 1913. In Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. 
Edin., Session 1915-1916, v. 20, pt. 1, p. 16-22. 

(2) and Rennie, John. 

1916. OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS BEARING ON ISLE OF WIGHT DISEASE 

in hive bees. In Proc Royal Phys. Soc. Edin., Session 1915-1916, 
v. 20, pt. 1, p. 23-61, 1 pi. 

(3) Burri, R. 

1912. TATIGKEITSBERICHT DER SCHWEIZ. MILCHWIRTSCHAFTLICHEN und bak- 
TERIOLOGISCHEN BERN-LIEBEFELD PRO 1911 ERSTATTET AN DAS SCHWEIZ. 

LANDwiRTSCHAFTSDEPARTMENT. In Landwirtsch. Jahrb. d. Schweiz., 
Jahrg. 26, p. 469-491. 
Page 471: Im apistischen Betrieb. 

(4) Ewing, H. E. 

1922. STUDIES OF THE TAXONOMY AND BIOLOGY OF THE TARSONEMID MITES, 
TOGETHER WITH A NOTE ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF TARSONEMUS 

woodi, rennie. In Can. Ent., v. — , no. — , p. — . 
(In press.) 

(5) Fantham, H. B., and Porter, Annie. 

1911. A BEE DISEASE DUE TO A PROTOZOAL PARASITE (NOSEMA APIS). In PrOC. 

Zool. Soc. London, pt. 3, p. 625-626. 

(6) 

1912. MICROSPORIDIOSIS, A PROTOZOAL DISEASE OF BEES DUE TO NOSEMA APIS, 

and popularly known as isle of wight disease. In Ann. Trop. Med. 
and Parasit., ser. T. M., v. 6, no. 2, p. 145-161. 
References, p. 161. 

THE MORPHOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF NOSEMA APIS AND THE SIGNIFI- 
CANCE OF ITS VARIOUS STAGES IN THE SO-CALLED 'iSLE OF WIGHT' DISEASE 

in bees (microsporidiosis). In Ibid., p. 163-195, pi. 14-16. 
References, p. 189. 

THE DISSEMINATION OF NOSEMA APIS. In Ibid., p. 197-214. 

(7) Graham-Smith, G. S.; Fantham, H. B.; Porter, Annie; Bullamore, G. W., 

and Malden, W. 
1912. report on the isle of wight bee disease (microsporidiosis). Supple- 
ment no. 8, Journ. Board. Agr. [London], v. 19, no. 2, 143 p., 5 pi. 
Bibliography, p. 139-143. 



(8) — 

1913. further report on the isle of wight bee disease (microsporidiosis). 
Supplement no. 10, Journ. Board. Agr. [London], v. 20, no. 4, 47 p. 
Bibliography, p. 46-47. 

(9) Harvey, Elsie J. 

1921. ISLE OF WIGHT DISEASE IN HIVE BEES — EXPERIMENTS ON INFECTION WITH 

tarsonemus woodi, n. sp. In Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., v. 52, pt. 4, 
no. 29, p. 765-767. 

(10) Hirst, Stanley. 

1921. on the mite (acarapis woodi, rennie) associated with isle of wight 

bee disease. In Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., v. 7, no. 42, 9th ser., p. 

509-519. 

15 



16 Circular 218, U. S. Dept of Agriculture. 

(11) Maassen. 

1911. zur aetiologie und epidemiologie der ruhr bei den bienenvolkern. 

In Mitt. K. Biol. Anst. Land. u. Forstw., heft 11. March, p. 50-54. 

(12) and Nithack. 

1910. uber die ruhr der bienen. In Mitt. K. Biol. Anst. Land. u. Forstw., 

heft 10, p. 39-42, March. 

(13) Petersen, Hans. 

1912. beitrage zur vergleichenden physiologie der verdauung. v. die 

verdauung der honigbiene. In Pfliiger's Archiv fiir die gesammte 
Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere, v. 145, p. 121-151, 1 fig., 2 pis. 

(14) Phillips, E. F. 

1911. the treatment of bee diseases. U. S. Dept. Agr., Farmers' Bui. 442, 

22 p., 7 figs. 

(15) and Demuth, George S. 

1914. the temperature of the honeybee cluster in winter. U. S. Dept. 
Agr., Bulletin 93. 16 p., 2 figs. 

(16) Pixell-Goodrich, Helen L. M. 

1920. determination of age in honeybees. In Quarterly Journ. Micros. Sci., 

n. s. ; no. 254, v. 64, pt. 2, January, p. 191-206, pi. 11. 

(17) Rennie, John. 

1921. notes on acarine disease, parts i- vii. In The Bee World, v. 2, no. 12, 

p. 144-145; v. 3, nos. 1-6, p. 5-7. 35-36, 66-67, 95-96, 115-117, 145-146, 
figs. 3-5, 68-74. 

(18) 

1921. ISLE OF WIGHT DISEASE IN HIVE BEES — ACARINE DISEASE: THE ORGANISM 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISEASE — TARSONEMUS WOODI, N. SP. Ill Trails. 

Roy. Soc Edin., v. 52, pt. 4, no. 29, p. 768-779, 1 pi., 2 figs. 
References, p. 778. 

(19) White, Philip Bruce, and Harvey, Elsie J. 

1921. isle of wight disease in hive bees. (1) The etiology of the disease. 
In Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., v. 52, pt. 4, no. 29, p. 737-754, 1 pi. 
Literature cited, p. 754. 

(20) TURESSON, G5TE. 

1917. THE TOXICITY OF MOULDS TO THE HONEYBEE, AND THE CAUSE OF BEE- 
PARALYSIS. In Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift, Band 11, p. 16-38. 
Literature cited, p. 36-38. 

(21) White, P. Bruce. 

1921. the pathology of isle of wight disease in hive bees. In Trans. Roy. 
Soc. Edin., v. 52, pt. 4, no. 29. p. 755-764, 1 pi. 
References to literature, p. 763. 

(22) Zander, Enoch. 

1909. tierische parasiten als krankheitserreger bei der biene. In Leip- 
siger Bienenzeitung, Jahrg. 24, heft 10, p. 147-150, 2 figs.; and heft 11, 
p. 164-166. (Also in Munchener Bienenzeitung, 1909, heft 9.) 

(23) 

1911. KRANKHEITEN UND SCHADLINGE DER ERWACHSENEN BIENEN. 42 p., 8 pi., 

13 figs. Stuttgart. (Handbuch der Bienenkunde II.) 
ADDITIONAL COPIES 

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM 

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 

GOVERNMENT PRINTTNG OFFICE 

WASHINGTON D. C. 

AT 

5 CENTS PER COPY 







-::':' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



.™. ,»,„„„„,,, i III l || || I I mill 

002 838 855 A 



